I have been talking a lot lately about political/economic philosophy, but I want to talk about metaphysics too. It's the most important side of philosophy, without it, there is no philosophy to talk about. It's the basis of all there is.
So metaphysics is the part of philosophy that explores the nature of reality. I have always found it fascinating to explore that nature of what we live in. It's one of the most important sides of life to explore the world around you and how it works.
I was thinking about non-existence at lot, especially many years ago, what is it like to not exist. Is such thing possible? Is it possible for something to not exist?
Well I think I have discovered the mystery around this problem. First of all I think it's the wrong question to ask. If you ask the question, is it possible for something to not exist? I think this is a meaningless question.
This is like asking, is it possible to have a pink elephant? I guess it is, but what does it matter? So the same way if you ask is it possible for something to not exist, is a valid question, but regardless of how you answer it, it doesn't tell us anything.
For example I don't have a Ferrari. So my Ferrari, that would have been mine, doesn't exist. So is it possible for my Ferrari to not exist? Well yes, because it doesn't exist. But so what? I can list an infinite amount of things that also don't exist, like pink Pixies flying around my room. Or maybe they do it's just that I can't sense them.
So either those things don't exist, or they do it's just that we can't sense them. Like in a Multiverse, different worlds with different fundamental rules. It's impossible to detect.
Another example is the Past. Well my actions exist now, but they fade away into nothing as time moves on. So the thing that I did 1 second ago doesn't exist anymore, because it's impossible to access, and it will never come back.
So going on that logic even my life doesn't exist, because every single thread of my life fades into nothing 1 second later.
So you get the idea that there is something wrong with this point of view. If NON-EXISTENCE would matter, then it would open up a room to explore all sorts of weird consequences of it. Like for example what I described above. In that scenario nothing would exist, because time would just erase everything eventually. So it's the wrong point of view.
Ok so if people are afraid of dying because they will fade away into non-existence, then they got the game wrong. Because their Past already doesn't exist, so basically their life has already faded into nothing, so what can they possibly worry about?
Where is your Past life? It already doesn't exist. It's gone. So what? Does it matter?
So let's look at it from a different point of view. What if we look at it from a subjective point of view? After all what other point there is?
So instead of talking about my non-existing Ferrari, why doesn't it exist? Well because I haven't experienced it, yet (hopefully).
So is the focus really on the existence vs non-existence debate, or is it on the experience vs non-experience debate?
Because it doesn't matter what concept, what words inside your mind, or what thoughts inside your mind you are talking about. The only thing that matters is the experience of it.
Even if I would have a Ferrari, it only exists until I experience it. The moment I park it inside a garage, it doesn't exist anymore. The experience of sitting inside the car and driving it, is just gone with time. The car is just an experience, and the experience only lasts until you experience it.
After I park it inside the garage, it's just a thought inside my mind. The experience of driving it was gone with time.
So things exist only until you experience them, after that it's gone. So the focus is not on the existence or non-existence of a thought, because those come and go. It's about the experience itself.
The real question is now, is there such a thing as non-experience? Like what happens when a person dies? What experience is that? Is it the end of experience? That would be non-experience.
A person dies, and then all of it is gone, the Past is gone, and the future ability of experiencing things are gone too. So that person fades into nothing. That would be non-experience, just nothing forever.
Alright so when somebody dies, people think it's an event of non-experience, the lack of experiencing things forever.
Well the problem is, and I left this as a surprise, because the mere concept of "non-experience" is illogical. It makes no sense whatsoever.
How can there be a "non-experience" it's a direct contradiction. While "non-existence" is happening through a lack of subjective experience (like my non-existent Ferrari), "non-experience" on the other hand is illogical because it's the experience that would be the "container" for a lack of a Ferrari.
But to say that there is no "container" and then summoning a "container" at the same time is illogical.
The experience is the container for everything, so you can't experience the lack of it, that would invoke the container that supposedly doesn't exist, but it has to in order for us to stay logical.
Or it other words the experience has to be eternal, there can't be a lack of experience, because there is just no way to experience that. The container might be filled with other stuff, but the container itself has to be there.
So when people die, the experience can't go away. It's impossible. Well sure but then where does the experience come from, because the brain and the entire body just goes away.
Well it looks like you just have to abandon materialism, because in the context of materialism this problem can't be solved.
But if you view the world in a different way, then it makes total sense. After all the body is just an experience as well, inside the same container that all other things are.
It's the subjective experience that precedes all other things. It looks like the nature of reality is like a "dream world".
Some people call it the Simulated Universe, but that would require an infinite loop of creators, like a Russian Doll continuum.
I don't think it's like that. I think it's just bubbles of experiences floating around, but there is always something new to come.
Even if a person dies, physicists have anticipated that the Universe could repeat itself after a long enough time:
So if a person dies, after a long enough timeline he comes back, and since he can't experience nothing in the meantime, it would be just like being born again. So this is a strong enough case for Reincarnation. And from his point of view it would be the same experience continuously, there is no pause from his point of view. And the point of view of others doesn't matter.
But if things like the Multiverse theory would be right, then there is no time at all, everything exists already, and the Reincarnation happens instantly. If there is no time, then there is nothing to wait for.
So in all cases the experience just doesn't go away, it exists forever, continuously. It's always there in one form or the other.
In my opinion, this shows that the nature of reality is like a "dream world", dreams come and go basically.
Sources:
https://pixabay.com
FOllow Me : 
